Sessions met with Russian envoy twice last year, encounters he later did not disclose

I have no idea, but I am not the one making accusations. When I do - I present proofs. Such as - Obama's administration expelled thirdty five RF citizens on diplomatic duty from the country, in responce to unproven involvement of RF in the USA elections.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/29/barack-obama-sanctions-russia-election-hack

I find that being not just suspitious - hostile. And want to know, why is that not concerning you, for example? You are not finding hostility of your country's government towards citizens of foreign country being concerning?

There is my question, over an act of USA government, that I can proove have took place. And not by vague 'met two times', but by quite open statement.

Question - could it be so, that modern day USA government uses hatred and xenophobia as one of foundations for it's polics?

 

obviously


vvv irrelevant to this thread

 

Well oiled machine!

 

Serves as example of just accusation.

 

Many in America refer to males by their last names not by their first names. Even your best male friends you refer to them by their last names. It may be a military thing.

America use to be a nation of warriors, with the changing demographics and the poosyfying of America maybe half of America are still warriors.

Since many of us remember Andrew Breitbart and he only passed away 5 years and 1 day ago, when we hear the word "Breitbart" we first think of Andrew Breitbart not "Breitbart News."

I remember when Breitbart was found dead. Most were wondering if foul play was involved. Did Obama, Hillary or the DNC put a hit contract out on Breitbart ?

 

OK children,let's dissect this charge by charge so even a petulant 10 year old can grasp it.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., asked: "Several of the President-elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?"

Sessions responded, in total: "No."

Now class, carefully read and try to comprehend the part I put in bold. He said no, he hadn't been in contact with the Russian government about the election not that he had no contact with the Russian government at all.

Class dismissed.

 

For the 20th time I have taken nothing out of context and you are mischaracterizing the question and answer to defend a liar because he is a Republican.

Not at all. But you are taking his full statement out of context. Here is the entire statement, up to the time he asks a question:

CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week, that included information that “Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.” These documents also allegedly say “there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.” Again, I’m telling you this as it’s coming out, so you know.

So he is setting the predicate for his question by noting reports that Russians have compromising information about Trump, and there is a continuing exchange of information between Trump surrogates and the Russians.

And so how does that context prove Sessions statement was not a lie?

I posted verbatim the relevant part of the statement multiple times. No lie at all.

Wait, why did you exclude Franken's question from your "context"?

My God you can't even be honest enough to quote Franken's entire question and you want to pretend you're innocent here?

Here is the part you omitted (or as you would say, lied):

SEN. AL FRANKEN: "If there was any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this (2016) campaign, what would you do?"

So having set the context that there are reports that Trump surrogates have been exchanging information with the Russians, Franken asks Sessions a broader question to see what he would do if he there any evidence of any communications between a Trump affiliate and the Russian government, during the campaign.

Only after that quest by Franken you omitted from your "context" does Sessions answer: "I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians ."

He says he's not aware of any of those activities -- i.e. communications between a Trump affiliate and the Russian government. He says, disingenuously, that he's been called a surrogate. And then he says that having been called a surrogate, I did not have communications with the Russians

We now know that Sessions, a Trump advisor and therefore affiliate since March 2016, met with the Russian government official on (at least) two occasions, in July and September 2016.

So exactly what do you claim is the "context" that makes Sessions answer to Franken's question not a bald face lie?

What in the hell are you blathering about? I've posted his entire sentence dozens of times in this thread. Try to show a tad of intellectual honesty.

You've once again utterly failed to show how any of that makes Sessions' answer anything other than a bald faced lie.

LOL, you completely omitted Franken's question from your "context" and have the gall to call me a liar and lecture me on posting the entire quote?

Well, I have to admire the nerve you show with your intellectual dishonesty.

 

That's just not good enough.

This was going from hard core hawk to total dove.

Politicians change their policies to some extent, but this is far more than that. I know of no other example of a change of heart this large on an issue so significant to US foreign policy.

 

Russia is being accused of interfering in the US election, and you say there's no proof only accusation.

A timeline of Donald Trump’s Russia problem
https://www.ft.com/content/5647dcb0-ff2e-11e6-96f8-3700c5664d30

And we're not even mentioning the blackmail report from ex MI6 agent. You are indoctrinated, it can be the only explanation for your blindness.

 

Sorry, but your not even in the right class. No one is even talking about Leahy's question.

 

I agree he should've clarified when he answered that he did meet with them in his Senate capacity as part of his job.

I can't help that you deny the context of the whole conversation. It is easy to see why he answered the way he did. In this case, I think it was an understanding of the question issue.
You think differently. What you think is as irrelevant as what I think.

 

I'm beginning at the beginning. I take it you admit this is not a lie? Admit that and we can move to the next charge.

 

I can see why.

 

"Context of the conversation" is paramount.

 

Where's the evidence Sessions in a campaign capacity had colluded with Russians about anything? Sessions "I never met with any Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign. I have no idea what this allegation is about," he said.

 

Your comprehension problems are not my problems.

But here's a little hint, when I talk about linking to, or citing to Breitbart, I'm not talking about the dead guy in his grave, OK?

I hope that helps your confusion in the future.

 

Not looking for a word thank you, "I never met with any Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign. I have no idea what this allegation is about," he said. Maybe he met with the Russians on the tarmac of an airport to discuss golf and grand kids.

 

What operatives? Where is the proof? Post less big fonts, and more of a solid source, please. That statement, that you quoted, accuses governmental services of my country of an international crime. I would like to have some explanation on that.

 

You've proven nothing of the sort, as you have utterly failed to explain how I have taken anything "out of context" or that Sessions' bald face lie is not a lie.

Coming from a person who can't even post complete quotes because they ruin his argument that's pretty funny.

- - - Updated - - -

`

You'll have to ask Franken. That is not my assertion.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know, where?

 

You have failed to prove he lied about anything.

 

July 22, 2016 - accusation with no evidence.
August 19 - rather serves as proof of anti-russian xenophobia, than interfierence.
August 29 - a personal opinion, not an evidence.
January 10, 2017 - already discussed, ambassador is not a member of government.
January 11 - 'unverified'.
February 14 - again not a proof of anything, but anti-russian policy of USA.
February 15 - if they have found it - they should publish it, otherwise it is just an empty accusation.
February 26 - what else they expected to do? Unless FBI and CIA have a real evidence that they.. Have not presented to public - why?
March 1 - and once again, ambassador is not a member of government.

What I see - is use of mood against citizens of Russian Federation to benefit one party in a political struggle. Position built on fear and hate.

 

WRONG.

Sessions did not lie.

This is what happened: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usne...r-oath-about-communications-with-the-russians

Sessions was answering a very specific question when he said he “did not have communications with the Russians.” That question — asked by Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.) — was, “If there is any evidence that anyone affiliated the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?” Sessions’ complete answer (which is not widely reported) was, “Senator Franken, I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and I did not have communications with the Russians. And I’m unable to comment.”​

Wait, what was Sessions full answer? Not the phrase that people like you take out of context, but the full answer?

“Senator Franken, I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and I did not have communications with the Russians. And I’m unable to comment.”​

You owe the world an apology for misrepresenting (called lying by most people) Sessions statement.

 

Just as they have failed to prove Russia fixed the election. Just another attempt to derail Trump from achieving what we voted him into do. Mean while he's going about his business and doing it.

 

At least we cleared that out.

 

That's been pointed out 50 times but maybe 51 will get through, or not. LOL